By MICHAEL O’HARA, guest columnist
The following is a rebuttal to the “guest opinion” by John Krull in the April 4 edition of our local Brown County Democrat. Krull is a well-known syndicated columnist, and it was no accident his opinion found its way on to the pages of our local publication and into the homes of most of our electorate.
At first glance, one would assume this was about gun violence, but when one looks a bit deeper, it becomes obvious that this is strictly a partisan, progressive hit piece on the opposition.
I have no intention of debating gun violence here. That will still be going on long after I depart this earth. What I want to address and share with the electorate, and especially our young people, is how Krull is using his status as a highly placed “authority” in the educational establishment to warp the narrative by twisting the facts to his advantage. In my mind, what he is doing is no different than what we have seen many of “The Influentials” do who have been recently found guilty of using that power to further their own private needs.
Krull specifically attacks Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Association. He also attacks Jim Lucas, who is the state representative from Seymour. His district does not include Brown County.
Let us begin with Lucas. He is a former Marine. He has been elected to the state Legislature three consecutive terms and will most likely be re-elected this fall. He belongs to the American Legion in Seymour, one of the largest and most well-established posts in the state. He is a Republican. He and Krull have been adversaries on every issue since he was first elected, so it should come as no surprise he was targeted in this piece.
Krull levels this highly charged accusation at Lucas: “Lucas says people who disagree with his radical notions of gun rights — he’s said the Second Amendment should allow private citizens to own nuclear weapons — are evil.”
According to an article by Tony Cook at indystar.com, that isn’t really what Lucas said. Cook wrote in an October 2017 column about what actually transpired on Krull’s “No Limits” radio program. Lucas was asked if there are any weapons he believes should be banned.
“Well,” Lucas said, “some people have said if you can afford it, you should be able to have it.”
Asked if that would extend to nuclear and biological weapons, Lucas declined to answer.
“That’s a longer stretch than what we’ve got here in probably 10 seconds,” he said. “I’m going to pause on that one, on people having nuclear weapons in their home.”
Perhaps he meant to say “pass” rather than “pause,” but that obviously was a loaded question. Although this does show Krull was really bending his words, it came in the middle of a larger conversation. Rhetorically, Lucas asked Krull what he would think of a law requiring journalists to be licensed because of the great influence they wield. The thought was if you can regulate the Second Amendment, you can regulate the First.
These two men really don’t like each other. Regardless of what one thinks of Lucas, that does not give Krull the right to misrepresent someone else in a bad light when they know it is not so, especially when you have the established credentials that Krull has.
On to LaPierre and the NRA: Krull states the following: “LaPierre says anyone who doesn’t want mentally ill people to have access to firearms — particularly military weapons — hates America and freedom.”
Wow! I couldn’t believe what I was reading. Anyone who read that knew it wasn’t true. But I like to have my facts straight when criticizing someone as respected in the journalistic community as Krull.
I called the NRA and they referred me to a representative of their Institute for Legislative Action. They could hardly believe what I read them from Krull’s commentary. They assured me LaPierre said no such thing, and furthermore, that was not the position of the NRA, au contraire.
This leads one to consider why Krull would misrepresent the positions of a state legislator and a spokesman for millions of law-abiding citizens.
Once again, this is not about gun violence but rather about truth and consequences. Krull is certainly entitled to his opinions, but he is not entitled to force his progressive ideas down the throats of unsuspecting and vulnerable people, especially our young folks, by twisting the words of those who have different ideas. Shame on him. Let’s take just a moment to understand how this works.
In his column of April 4, he calls people like myself “rabid” and “zealots,” and thus we are all (that is members of the NRA) marginalized, people whose opinions should not be considered.
Zealot: a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political or other ideals. For Krull, this is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.
It sounds like other things I’ve heard about, how members of the NRA are part of a “terrorist organization.” I assure you, I take great umbrage to those types of accusations. Nowhere does the NRA advocate any sort of violent action against existing authorities, nor have their members committed any acts of mass violence over the past 50 years or more.
This is not Krull’s first foray into his name-calling. He has in the past criticized and name-called just about everyone he disagrees with. He has even called one of our elected representatives in Congress a “bootlicker.” Not really the kind of language you would expect from a journalist with such exalted credentials as Krull.
Krull uses, as he often does, “unnamed sources,” supposed NRA members who are critical of the NRA. Well, show me your membership card or pack your stuff.
I want to leave you with a quote from one of our former citizens who used to sit across the table from me at the VFW. It was his mantra and I fully concur: “What’s right is right, what’s wrong is not.” — Dave Stackhouse, Korean War veteran
Michael O’Hara is a Brown County resident, Marine Corps veteran, a writer of local military history and the recipient of the Congressional Veterans Commendation Award.
